(a) The burden of proof of damages where the lessee of a multi-family building is the key to return at the time of termination of the lease, but the name of business permission is transferred, but only the building is ordered after the termination of the lease and fails to cooperate in the return

B. The case affirming the court below's dismissal of the claim for damages where the plaintiff did not comply with the request to prove the amount of damages

A. Where the lessee of a multi-user building is to be the return key at the time of the termination of the lease, but only the building is ordered after the termination of the lease, and if the lessee does not cooperate in the return of the business license, the lessor who already received the part of the building from the lessee and made it possible to lease only the part of the building to another person, is to prove how much the rent which the lessee may receive in the case of changing the name of the lessee to the part of the building in the name of the lessee when he leases the part of the building in order to seek compensation for damages due to the failure to receive the refund of the above multi-user business license.

B. The case affirming the court below's decision that dismissed the claim for damages where the plaintiff did not comply with the request to prove the amount of damages.

A. Article 390 of the Civil Act, Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 126 of the same Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 84Meu503, 504 decided Aug. 19, 1986 (Gong1986, 1206) (Gong1988, 323) 91Da21398 decided Mar. 31, 1992 (Gong1992, 1402)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na52483 delivered on July 22, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below decided on November 14, 1989 that it is difficult for the plaintiff to use the tea of this case to the defendant as a multi-use property deposit amounting to KRW 7,00,000, monthly rent amounting to KRW 300,000, and the period is one year, and that the above multi-use business license is to be returned to the plaintiff if the period of the multi-use business license expires because the multi-use business license expires for the convenience of the business, the defendant extended the above lease period until March 15, 191, and removed the above multi-use business from the above multi-use business, and thereafter accepted the above multi-use business by the plaintiff on the ground that it is difficult for the plaintiff to use the multi-use business license under the above Article 25 of the Food Sanitation Act and Article 33 of the Enforcement Rule of the same Act, but it is not possible for the plaintiff to use the multi-use business license for the reason that the above multi-use business license does not interfere with the plaintiff's transfer of the above multi-use business license.

First of all, we cannot accept the argument that the part of the building in this case is impossible to be used for purposes other than multiple, because it is nothing more than criticism against the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive authority of the court below. In addition, in light of the evidence relations stated by the court below, the fact-finding of the court below that the part of the building in this case can be used for purposes other than multiple, is justified, and there is no reason to see any one.

In addition, as in the case of this case, if the name of multiple business permission for the lease of a building is changed to that of a lessee, it is highly probable that the rent would be the maximum amount rather than the lease of the building normally. However, in order to seek compensation for damages due to the failure to refund only the part of the building that was delivered by the defendant, the plaintiff who is possible to lease only the part of the building to another person after delivery of the defendant, shall prove the maximum amount of the rent that can be received in the case of the lease of the part of the building in the name of the tenant without changing the name of the above multi-use business permission, and the difference shall be verified. The records do not contain any evidence to prove it. Furthermore, the court below's decision is justified since there is no further evidence to prove it to the plaintiff's legal representative at the fifth date for pleading of the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the right to claim compensation for damages in this case after closing arguments (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da1398, Mar. 12, 1992).

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)